Now that China has successfully completed its first manned mission, the United States is worried that it may be left behind when it comes to space-related endeavors.

China initially launched its Tiangong 1 prototype space station module in September 2011 and linked its Shenzhou 8 spacecraft to it in November. Earlier this month, China completed its first manned mission to Tiangong 1 using its Shenzhou 9 spacecraft, which contained the country's first female astronaut.

With so many firsts under China's belt, the U.S. is getting a little worried. Some scientists, such as lunar geologist Paul Spudis say that China could renounce the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that no one can claim national sovereignty in space. Spudis believes that potential resources on the moon, such as water, could tempt the country into renouncing the treaty.

There are also worries about the U.S. government's space program. While the U.S. has the private sector (SpaceX) taking care of space-related business for now, there are concerns regarding the private sector's ability to uphold the American space effort without the government's support. The U.S.' funding for the space program has been quite low, even to the point where NASA urged Congress to provide the full $850 million for commercial crew vehicle development last October.

However, the private sector has made strong contributions so far with SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule making its first successful trip to the International Space Station (ISS) last month.

Others aren't quite as worried about China's position in the space race. According to Jeff Foust, an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher, China's space program could potentially face some issues with coordination because it is ran by many different government agencies instead of just one.

Regardless, China is now a member of the space race and the U.S. may be taking the new potential competitor into consideration.

ROFL. We can cut 2 Trillion in welfare/social programs a year and still be spending more than 600 Billion than we have to spend. We're at the point of total collapse and they're just trying to postpone the inevitable while sucking any last riches from the masses. Our government can't compete with anyone at this point because Our debt is 1.1:1 of our GDP at this point. You can't spend yourself out of a recession.

If FDR had it entirely right, Greece, France and Italy would be the wealthiest nations on Earth, and Hong Kong and Singapore would be desolate 3rd world slums. Germany would be the sick man of Europe, not the relative powerhouse. Use a little logic, if possible.

FDR and Nixon both completely screwed this country up fiscally. Not that they saw it coming, who could have predicted todays politicians would take advantage of every program and economic policy they implemented to hook up their cronies?

Federal spending reached nearly 50% of GDP during WWII. That's compared to about 18%-20% in the last 3 decades. The Federal government accumulated a massive amount of debt during the war. But simply due to inflation, that debt barely even registers in today's dollars (it's the small red bump just to the right of "1940").

In other words, we don't have to pay off our debt. If we just eliminate the deficits (balance the budget each year), over time that unpaid debt will grow in terms of dollars, but due to inflation will shrink in terms of % of GDP. That's what happened after WWII. Here's a graph of debt as % of GDP.http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d2b68c54...

As you can see, our debt situation at the end of WWII was worse than our debt situation today (as percentage of GDP). But during 1946-1970, Federal spending was about the same as revenue. And so without paying a dime of debt, the debt shrank as a percent of GDP simply due to inflation and growth in the GDP.http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/e...

Call me negative, but I don't see that happening since the market is quite global now, and the US doesn't have the internal manufacturing sector we had back then. The US was a world leader in many industries that are now provided by many other countries.

As the global market flattens out across more and more countries, the wealth will spread as well. We are going to need to get much leaner to keep up with the global market and the US government and citizens needs to realize that. Without the government and citizens getting their houses in order financially, the US is going to eventually hit the wall.

Not just the US, but all developed nations that have decided to push manufacturing out to less developed countries for one reason or another(cheaper labor returns cheaper products, environmental concerns ect.)

A service based economy such as we are moving towards can not be as sustainable as a manufacturing one, since once money becomes short people tend to perform more of those services themselves, while during the same conditions most can not manufacture the things they need so still have to purchase them. Example, times are good and the handyman/light construction business flourishes, times are hard people become versed in Do It Yourself. Places like Lowe's and Home Depot make out good in both types of economies, but the smaller contractor/handyman sees a large drop in business.

FDR threatened the Supreme Court that if they didn't approve Social Security as being constitutional, he would pack the court with more justices who would vote with him. The only reason he wasn't able to, is because Congress rebuked him.

quote: FDR and Nixon both completely screwed this country up fiscally.

I would agree with FDR but Nixon was handed a snafu from LBJ. LBJ moved the Social Security from an isolated account to the general fund to finance his war. Nixon inherited that mess and floundered. Completely screwed up, the history doesn't entirely support that.

The devistaion we are feeling from LBJ and the Great Society. The Great Society has cost over $16T with only a fraction of a percent change in poverty. But if you think it was great the number of people trapped in poverty by those programs as the metric, you win.

Yes, I agree about Nixon. Getting us out of Vietnam before the country destroyed itself is an unsung achievement of sorts too; he had to go as far as put leaks out there to the Vietnamese suggesting he was madman ready to launch the nukes and glass the entire country to get them to the table for talks.

Could take the position he should've won the war (personally think it was Johnsons to win or lose, the die was cast already for Nixon), but the route he decided to take he executed better then, I would say, most presidents could have.